If the data is being displayed, then it is unencrypted in memory. The doctor doesn't have to do anything. An enterprising IT individual who understands the doctor's wishes to manage the data in their own way will write a tool -- perhaps even open source -- that will extract the data from memory and output to a comma separated file. Done.
> A real secure system would prevent this sort of thing
There is no such thing, unless you're going to allow no access at all to the data. The best you can hope for is to make it difficult enough that non-technical doctors won't know how or won't care to circumvent your road blocks.
The authors are not going to give away these rights if they can monetize them more effectively in other manners. If the loss in Amazon sales is less than the loss they would incur in audiobook sales, then they would be stupid to allow Amazon to do the text-to-speech option.
If what you say will happen does happen, it's because Amazon has found a more efficient distribution method. The market forces would be what causes businesses to go this route, because it makes more business sense to utilize the more efficient distribution method than to hold on to old ways of audiobooks in stores.
You are right, though, Amazon is not "caving" as the title implies. They are playing chicken with the industry. They are saying: you rightsowners are idiots; this is a win-win, and let me show you why.
Congrats. I think the point, though, is that security vulnerabilities exposing the worker's pictures to their trip to Cancun are a little less of an issue as if that same security vulnerability exposes my medical information. Your comment is analogous to saying: the problem isn't that your storing gold in the unlocked room; the problem is that it's unlocked. Yes, you're right; but it is still stupid to put gold in the room until it's lockable.
Spoken like an IT genius who doesn't understand a thing about non-technical business folk, especially non-technical government folk.
Would you care to estimate the percentage of end users who will copy&paste everything from this shiny new fully-encrypted fully-audited health records management system into their personal collection of word docs and excel sheets?
No, because the whole point is that his act of decrypting proves he knew that it was an encrypted file and contained document x. It doesn't even matter if the police know for 100% certainty that document x is on there, as long as they don't know for certain that the owner of the laptop knows that the file is there.
That's why decrypting a drive provides incriminating evidence. It doesn't really have to do with the document itself, because decrypting the drive does not change whether or not the document is there; it only changes whether the police can prove that the file is known to the laptop owner.
I know it's not common to read the article here on/., but I think it's reasonable to read the summer and be triggered that the details are important.
The reason you don't have to decrypt a drive is because the act of decrypting divulges that you own the drive, know it is decrypted, and know its contents. That is the potentially incriminating part. If you have already indicated that you own the drive, know it is decrypted, and know its contents (all of which this guy did), then there is nothing further to divulge in the act of decrypting itself. The 5th does not protect you from evidence you've done a crime. It only protects you from acts which would *themselves* give evidence of a crime. This is not the case in this situation, since he already admitted the evidence the act of decrypting would divulge.
> You speak of the "free market" as if it really exists. It doesn't, > governments all over world help their industries.
This was the irony I was talking about.
Ok, fine. Take out the word "free". When the market decides, it's because the product is superior to alternatives. When the government decides, it's because a select few in charge decided the product is superior, whether that's because of their true beliefs (unlikely), lobbyist money (likely), long-term career aspirations (likely), or other vested interests (likely).
Dude, I still think you don't get it. How do you prove evidence with science? It cannot be done. It's not a matter of language. It's not possible! The only thing you can do is disprove it.
I cannot have a reasonable discussion about science when the other person seems to have absolutely no idea how science works.
I don't know how I'm supposed to talk about science proving something when science can't prove anything.
This is not an issue of language. It is a very important distinction between proof and "our current understanding". If you think that is a matter of language, I don't really know what to tell you.
> "correlation does not mean causation." > > Is actually incorrect
No, it actually isn't. Your sentence is incorrect.
> When a scientist has evidence -- he must then prove or disprove the relationship.
You may want to re-read that book on the scientific method. The scientist cannot prove anything. The scientist can only disprove alternative theories and gather evidence in support of a particular theory.
> When I see statistics, I don't automatically believe what they imply, but more > often than not they are an indicator.
Congrats, you win most useless comment of the year. Of course statistics are an indicator. The question is what they indicate. If A is correlated with B, that does not indicate that A causes B. It does not indicate that B causes A. "Indicate" is even too strong of a word to describe the suggestion it gives that there is a relationship at all between A and B. A correlation is a measure of how likely that numerical measured relationship is just due to chance. If the correlation is high, then it is likely not due to chance. The implication there is that it is due to something non-random and systematic. That's all it says. It is up to the scientist to speculate on what that non-random and systematic driver is. It might be A, it might be B, and it might be neither (usually is).
> (2) if you smoke tobacco cigarettes you are more likely to get lung cancer. In > this case correlation *IS* causation.
We believe this is true. It has not been proven, and it will never be proven by science. The point here is that we didn't do a study of people who have lung cancer and people who smoke and draw some numerical correlation. That would be ridiculous, because it would be much more likely that unhealthy behavior in general causes both. After many, many studies removing most other known alternative theories of explanation, we finally accepted (for the most part) that this is a causal relationship. But it is still not proven!
The only thing a correlation shows is that numerical relationships aren't due wholly to chance, and it only shows this to a certain degree of certainty (ie, 95%).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but can a MD court seek damages against a Chinese citizen? What if his laws permit such speech?
How do they even determine that the anonymous posting is in their jurisdiction?
If the data is being displayed, then it is unencrypted in memory. The doctor doesn't have to do anything. An enterprising IT individual who understands the doctor's wishes to manage the data in their own way will write a tool -- perhaps even open source -- that will extract the data from memory and output to a comma separated file. Done.
touche
> A real secure system would prevent this sort of thing
There is no such thing, unless you're going to allow no access at all to the data. The best you can hope for is to make it difficult enough that non-technical doctors won't know how or won't care to circumvent your road blocks.
It's not possible. If you display the data, it can be copied. This goes back to the old DRM arguments.
Ok. Allow them to work locally against encrypted files.
The authors are not going to give away these rights if they can monetize them more effectively in other manners. If the loss in Amazon sales is less than the loss they would incur in audiobook sales, then they would be stupid to allow Amazon to do the text-to-speech option.
If what you say will happen does happen, it's because Amazon has found a more efficient distribution method. The market forces would be what causes businesses to go this route, because it makes more business sense to utilize the more efficient distribution method than to hold on to old ways of audiobooks in stores.
You are right, though, Amazon is not "caving" as the title implies. They are playing chicken with the industry. They are saying: you rightsowners are idiots; this is a win-win, and let me show you why.
Congrats. I think the point, though, is that security vulnerabilities exposing the worker's pictures to their trip to Cancun are a little less of an issue as if that same security vulnerability exposes my medical information. Your comment is analogous to saying: the problem isn't that your storing gold in the unlocked room; the problem is that it's unlocked. Yes, you're right; but it is still stupid to put gold in the room until it's lockable.
Spoken like an IT genius who doesn't understand a thing about non-technical business folk, especially non-technical government folk.
Would you care to estimate the percentage of end users who will copy&paste everything from this shiny new fully-encrypted fully-audited health records management system into their personal collection of word docs and excel sheets?
> There are more erroneous paths for neuron signals to travel down.
Please god make the improper neuroscience references stop.
> Cars cost our society an enormous amount.
Would you like to back up that statement, skippy? I have some economist friends who would probably disagree with you.
Can you point me to some sources on people who have been arrested for fraud related to CDS?
No, because the whole point is that his act of decrypting proves he knew that it was an encrypted file and contained document x. It doesn't even matter if the police know for 100% certainty that document x is on there, as long as they don't know for certain that the owner of the laptop knows that the file is there.
That's why decrypting a drive provides incriminating evidence. It doesn't really have to do with the document itself, because decrypting the drive does not change whether or not the document is there; it only changes whether the police can prove that the file is known to the laptop owner.
What if they believe you are a terrorist and there is information pertinent to an imminent threat?
I know it's not common to read the article here on /., but I think it's reasonable to read the summer and be triggered that the details are important.
The reason you don't have to decrypt a drive is because the act of decrypting divulges that you own the drive, know it is decrypted, and know its contents. That is the potentially incriminating part. If you have already indicated that you own the drive, know it is decrypted, and know its contents (all of which this guy did), then there is nothing further to divulge in the act of decrypting itself. The 5th does not protect you from evidence you've done a crime. It only protects you from acts which would *themselves* give evidence of a crime. This is not the case in this situation, since he already admitted the evidence the act of decrypting would divulge.
...a lot of lesbians have things in common that they might not with... your typical xbox live player. Like access to a vagina, for instance.
There, fixed that for you.
You're going to request a refund for 1.8 minutes?
> You speak of the "free market" as if it really exists. It doesn't,
> governments all over world help their industries.
This was the irony I was talking about.
Ok, fine. Take out the word "free". When the market decides, it's because the product is superior to alternatives. When the government decides, it's because a select few in charge decided the product is superior, whether that's because of their true beliefs (unlikely), lobbyist money (likely), long-term career aspirations (likely), or other vested interests (likely).
Dude, I still think you don't get it. How do you prove evidence with science? It cannot be done. It's not a matter of language. It's not possible! The only thing you can do is disprove it.
I cannot have a reasonable discussion about science when the other person seems to have absolutely no idea how science works.
I don't know how I'm supposed to talk about science proving something when science can't prove anything.
My point is it is silly to complain about taxes without also complaining about the programs these taxes fund.
Oh the irony.
This is not an issue of language. It is a very important distinction between proof and "our current understanding". If you think that is a matter of language, I don't really know what to tell you.
You have to pay for all those government programs somehow.
> "correlation does not mean causation."
>
> Is actually incorrect
No, it actually isn't. Your sentence is incorrect.
> When a scientist has evidence -- he must then prove or disprove the relationship.
You may want to re-read that book on the scientific method. The scientist cannot prove anything. The scientist can only disprove alternative theories and gather evidence in support of a particular theory.
> When I see statistics, I don't automatically believe what they imply, but more
> often than not they are an indicator.
Congrats, you win most useless comment of the year. Of course statistics are an indicator. The question is what they indicate. If A is correlated with B, that does not indicate that A causes B. It does not indicate that B causes A. "Indicate" is even too strong of a word to describe the suggestion it gives that there is a relationship at all between A and B. A correlation is a measure of how likely that numerical measured relationship is just due to chance. If the correlation is high, then it is likely not due to chance. The implication there is that it is due to something non-random and systematic. That's all it says. It is up to the scientist to speculate on what that non-random and systematic driver is. It might be A, it might be B, and it might be neither (usually is).
> (2) if you smoke tobacco cigarettes you are more likely to get lung cancer. In
> this case correlation *IS* causation.
We believe this is true. It has not been proven, and it will never be proven by science. The point here is that we didn't do a study of people who have lung cancer and people who smoke and draw some numerical correlation. That would be ridiculous, because it would be much more likely that unhealthy behavior in general causes both. After many, many studies removing most other known alternative theories of explanation, we finally accepted (for the most part) that this is a causal relationship. But it is still not proven!
The only thing a correlation shows is that numerical relationships aren't due wholly to chance, and it only shows this to a certain degree of certainty (ie, 95%).
Or how about a twitter + google local search + cameras correlation. "Follow me on twitter" can take on a whole new meaning.